Brave Sir Robin

[Nomad]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Anthropoid, even a Japanese victory is possible. There is the auto-victory thing. I almost never visit the AAR section but I think some guys managed to get this auto-victory as Japan.

My point is simply: the game per se is the reward, NOT a final score. Years playing vs someone and then you may say "oh, I won". That's five minutes of glory... Fair enough. What about the thousands of turns, hundreds of hours? They don't count? They are not part of the fun? Are you sure? I very much doubt it. In fact, I affirm this reasoning must be false... that or WitP is an absurd, worthless game [8D]

Now if we talk about games which we will finish in 2 or 3 days... That's a different story.

Excellent post, but I think you got it backwards - hundreds of turns and thousands of hours sounds more likely. [:)]

I agree, if you are having fun, then any idea of winning or losing is immaterial. If you are not having fun who cares if you are winning or losing? [8D]

[Anthropoid]

I can definitely imagine how losing might still be fun, and I can see the sense of the 'fun' being in the journey not the final outcome.
 
But I imagine that some folks are grippy because they feel they run a risk of losing to approaches that they deem to be ahistorical. If that is true, then there should be evidence of improbably frequent ahistorical outcomes (namely Japan winning).

[TulliusDetritus]

Anthropoid, and where is the problem? I don't get it, sorry. It's their game. They are free to make all kind of experiments. They only need to find opponents who will accept this kind of game (house rules, etc.). I think everyone can be happy. Someone is going to abuse, savage them on these forums for doing so (a "lunatic" approach)? Again, should they care about that?? I doubt it [:)]

Nomad, yes, obviously "thousands of hours and hundreds of turns (around 1300)".

JWE , er, please, don't feed my ego [8D]

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
But I imagine that some folks are grippy because they feel they run a risk of losing to approaches that they deem to be ahistorical.

I doubt there are very many (if any) players here who care much about winning or losing. The journey is what the game is all about, not who wins or loses.

That being said most gripes stem from the inclusion of a-historical stuff inserted into the game for play balance reasons.

There are two breeds of players here. Those who like strategy games and don't really care about historical accuracy as long as the strategy aspect of the game is fun. These players seem to prefer a balanced game where both sides are equally strong/weak.

And then there are those who care more about historical accuracy than merely strategy issues. These players would prefer Japan start and play with their severe historical limitations imposed for aesthetic reasons. Because victory or defeat really doesn’t matter to these players, it may come off as whiny/gripy to those who don’t care about accuracy, but accuracy is all they are really whining/griping about.

I’m one of the second group, I prefer history over balance. And most of my gripes are gripes that argue for historical accuracy. I could care less if I win or lose, if winning or losing was all there was to the game, I wouldn’t play it.

Jim

[Mosby]

I must say that I'm a part of the first group. I can understand that there is a ton of fun to be had just playing the game, but I would probably honestly feel like I just wasted all of that time playing if I knew there was nothing I could do to prevent myself from losing. I like the balance in this game, where there is a strong IJN early on, but he must do everything in his power to find the weaker yank and take him out. The longer he lets the war drag on, the greater chance he has of getting spanked by a better American fleet.

It's not like I want to always see a victory screen at the end, I'm perfectly fine with losing (as I do with most games) but I enjoy knowing that there was a chance that I could've won.

*needed some sp. corrections.

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Anthropoid, and where is the problem? I don't get it, sorry. It's their game. They are free to make all kind of experiments. They only need to find opponents who will accept this kind of game (house rules, etc.). I think everyone can be happy. Someone is going to abuse, savage them on these forums for doing so (a "lunatic" approach)? Again, should they care about that?? I doubt it [:)]

No problem! [:D] Just understanding through dialogue the rather unique breed of 'gamer' who plays this game.

I very much respect the idea that a game that does not 'breach' historical reality is in almost all instances preferable. But a game that simply 'mimics' historical reality seems tedious at best. I doubt that any of these guys are actually interested in that really (?)

Rather, I suspect that what the 'simulation' group are actually interested in is playing out far more subtle variations on historical reality. (e.g., what if Ensign Gay had not been in Torpedo Squad 8 on that fateful day in June 1942, but EVERYTHING else remained absolutely the same . . .). There is however, a large grey area between those two points on the continuum: (a) balance for the sake of a marketable war-game, and (b) a historical war-game that sticks as close to historical reality as is possible while still allowing the player a realistic decision latitude to change history.

Game makers are under different constraints than modders, so it is no surprise if the stock versions are too 'balanced' for the taste of the sim-oriented. But a game that sacrifices realism for balance is meritorious in its own right albeit for different reasons.

My main interest in this is not to judge any particular taste in the game, but to pick all your expert brains about the events which could have constituted 'what-if' events.

A matrix forum member named "Engineer" created a fascinating mod for War Plan Orange that spun a compelling what-if history involving different ships, different OOBs, different base construction levels (mostly Guam being a fortress), etc. This whole thing was portrayed as the outcome of one single hyper-militaristic Japanese Admiral not having been drowned on Titanics maiden voyage because on her test runs the skipper had some work done that prevented the ice berg damage from capsizing her. I seem to recall that this mod was called "Western Citadel."

[ChezDaJez]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Anthropoid, even a Japanese victory is possible. There is the auto-victory thing. I almost never visit the AAR section but I think some guys managed to get this auto-victory as Japan.

My point is simply: the game per se is the reward, NOT a final score. Years playing vs someone and then you may say "oh, I won". That's five minutes of glory... Fair enough. What about the thousands of turns, hundreds of hours? They don't count? They are not part of the fun? Are you sure? I very much doubt it. In fact, I affirm this reasoning must be false... that or WitP is an absurd, worthless game [8D]

Now if we talk about games which we will finish in 2 or 3 days... That's a different story.

Very, very well said.

I play as Japan and I could care less about points. I know that I will lose the war, that sooner or later the allies are going to be knocking on Japan's door.

So why do I play? I play for the comraderie offered by my opponent, I play for that one victory where all the stars were aligned in my favor. I play to be able raz my opponent when I when win a battle or to whine (I mean justify) about why I lost.

The fun is in the jopurney, not the destination.

Chez

[bradfordkay]

Jopurney? Do you need a jeepney to take a jopurney? [:'(]

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
But I imagine that some folks are grippy because they feel they run a risk of losing to approaches that they deem to be ahistorical.

I doubt there are very many (if any) players here who care much about winning or losing. The journey is what the game is all about, not who wins or loses.

That being said most gripes stem from the inclusion of a-historical stuff inserted into the game for play balance reasons.

There are two breeds of players here. Those who like strategy games and don't really care about historical accuracy as long as the strategy aspect of the game is fun. These players seem to prefer a balanced game where both sides are equally strong/weak.

And then there are those who care more about historical accuracy than merely strategy issues. These players would prefer Japan start and play with their severe historical limitations imposed for aesthetic reasons. Because victory or defeat really doesn’t matter to these players, it may come off as whiny/gripy to those who don’t care about accuracy, but accuracy is all they are really whining/griping about.

I’m one of the second group, I prefer history over balance. And most of my gripes are gripes that argue for historical accuracy. I could care less if I win or lose, if winning or losing was all there was to the game, I wouldn’t play it.

Jim

I'd have to say I'm part of the first group. And there is a reason. The Journey isn't fun if I already know the outcome will be bad no matter what I do. The severe limitations some people want imposed insure that there is no point even trying as the Japanese side.

I much prefer a game that gives each side an equal chance to attain victory. This may be due in part to my the players own strategic brilliance, or the opponants blunders. This does not mean a strict adherance to how the war historically played out, nor does it mean that we throw in fantasy super ships with lasers for balance. It's something in between...which is what I think the game currently offers by allowing the weaker side to control production while the stronger cannot. In WiTP, the Japanese player can make up for his lack of production by streamlining it. A-historical for sure, but a lot more fun in the end game when he/she is so vastly out-equipped.

Also, just think of it in this manner. Why would I start a journey when I know the outcome is already decided before I even take my first step...especially when I know that outcome is going to be a complete impossibility for me to win? Why would I start such a journey? For me that is totally unfun and pointless. I'm sure there are some out there that don't have to win to have fun, but I'm willing to bet the majority of players find games more enjoyable when they have a good chance at pulling off victory.

A purely historical scenario does have its merits, but so does an a-historical scenario. And remember, unless you plan to do the research and fight the war EXACTLY as it was fought, then the scenario becomes a-historical from the moment the first order is issued.

[BrucePowers]

I play because of the people I'm playing with.....

[Mosby]

I understand that I can maybe eek out a win against the AI or a really bad human player when playing the grand campaign, but what about the other scenarios? I'm guessing they are just smaller battles, so would the IJN have a chance then?

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Mosby

I understand that I can maybe eek out a win against the AI or a really bad human player when playing the grand campaign, but what about the other scenarios? I'm guessing they are just smaller battles, so would the IJN have a chance then?

i think the Coral Sea and Guadalcanal scenarios are more balanced.

[Oldguard1970]

Play to win or play for the journey?  Heck, I do both.  I try to "win" every turn!  I pace and wait for my Japanese opponent to send the combat results so can I see what happened.
 
(What!?  The Betties got my lurking SCTF?   Aha!  That fighter trap bagged a bunch of enemy aircraft.  Hmm??  How can I get that LCU back into supply?  Gosh... do you suppose I could successfully invade...?)
 
Great stuff!  

[Grell]

ORIGINAL: Big B



However, WitP is a fluid game - and such guarantees cannot/should not be made...otherwise we can all just watch a documentary and drink a beer.[;)]

LOL! Okay, I'm watching a documentary and drinking a beer (even though I don't drink)[:)]

Regards,

Greg

[John Lansford]

In a game with WiTP's size, I realize there are going to have to be compromises between reality and gameplay, and I accept that.
 
However, I also want to be confronted with the same problems, realities and decisions that the real life commanders were faced with.  As of right now, WitP has a more "gamey" feel to me than it ought to. 
 
For example, by late 1943 I've successfully isolated Rabaul by capturing and building airbases surrounding that stronghold.  I have the Admiralty Islands, Green Island, Sag-Sag, Finschafen, Gasmata, and one of the bases just north of Rabaul itself.  All of these airbases have strong anti-shipping airpower in them, with experience and range to devastate any convoys trying to reach Rabaul itself.
 
The AI continues sending convoys successfully into Rabaul, to resupply and then evacuate some of the 20+ LCU's I had trapped there.  Sure I sink a third or more of the ships on the way in and out; the convoy still gets in there.  This should NOT happen; IRL it would have NEVER  happened.  Once the US isolated a base like this IRL, the Japanese abandoned attempts to resupply them via surface ships as it was suicide.  Not here; as long as the AI (or human player) is willing to accept some losses, the convoy will make it in and out of an isolated base.
 
I'd like to feel that the same problems and realities the commanders had IRL were manifested in the game as well, but ship damage is definitely one of the fundamentals that is not accurately reflected in WitP.

[siRkid]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford


The AI continues sending convoys successfully into Rabaul, to resupply and then evacuate some of the 20+ LCU's I had trapped there.  Sure I sink a third or more of the ships on the way in and out; the convoy still gets in there.  This should NOT happen; IRL it would have NEVER  happened.  Once the US isolated a base like this IRL, the Japanese abandoned attempts to resupply them via surface ships as it was suicide.  Not here; as long as the AI (or human player) is willing to accept some losses, the convoy will make it in and out of an isolated base.

I'd like to feel that the same problems and realities the commanders had IRL were manifested in the game as well, but ship damage is definitely one of the fundamentals that is not accurately reflected in WitP.

I disagree with you. Nothing is worse than a game developer deciding for you the strategy you should take because “it happened that way in real life”. Even in your own statement you prove my point. The Japanese did not do it because they were unwilling to accept the losses. What if they were? Why should a game player who is willing to accept the losses be prevented from doing so?

A proper game should model the physical properties as accurately as possible and then let the player decide what to do with them. If I want to send in a supply fleet that may take 75% losses, then I should be allowed to.

[John Lansford]

Kid,
 
The Japanese didn't try and resupply Rabaul and Truk once they were isolated not because they were unwilling to accept the losses, but because it would have been IMPOSSIBLE.  The Bismarck Sea massacre proved that for them and they had the sense to realize trying a resupply mission would just result in more losses for nothing gained.
 
"A proper game should model the physical properties as accurately as possible and then let the player decide what to do with them. If I want to send in a supply fleet that may take 75% losses, then I should be allowed to."
 
Glad we agree on something, then.  However, WitP does not model the real life situation that would have resulted if the Japanese had tried to resupply Rabaul after it was isolated.  Can you show me an instance when they TRIED to do what I mentioned earlier and succeeded?  Or that they even TRIED, period?  If there had been IRL instances where freighters absorbed 20 500 lb bombs and didn't sink, or convoys made it to isolated bases and only lost a handful of ships (hint, 4 ships sunk out of 20 is NOT 75% losses, it's 20%), then I'd have to agree with you that the game is modeling what happened IRL accurately.  It does not. 

[witpqs]

But if the modeling is good enough, then in game it would prove impossible (in similar circumstances) as it did in real life.

[John Lansford]

"But if the modeling is good enough, then in game it would prove impossible (in similar circumstances) as it did in real life."
 
My point exactly, meaning the model WitP works with is more weighted for gameplay than realism.

[panda124c]

ORIGINAL: Mosby

So, in this game you would be ok as playing as the Japanese knowing you couldn't win, as long as you could be "better" than they were in real life?
Does that make me an awful person then when I consider that a waste of time? haha

I think I might be ok with that after being able to mull all of it over for a while, but I'm not too sure. I'd be ok with a game like Europa, where I myself set whatever I want for goals...but in here where it's pretty laid out that I need to beat the yanks...it would suck to play EVERY game knowing that I could never really win.

Win???? What is a win, the Japanese themselves expected to lose if forced to fight to the end, their hope was in the US becoming tired of fighting and suing for a peaceful settlement giving Japan what she needed.
So if you maintain the empire for even one month longer than the Japanese did historically then you have done a 'better' job than historically, and have in essence 'won'. I think the problem is in the mind set that says this many points and I win and you lose.
Because if the size of this game it is actually possible to cause your opponent (Allied) to quit the game solely due to it's length and the player becoming tired of playing. This would be a 'historical' win for the Japanese.[8D]